You have failed to follow in their footsteps.
You admitted (above) that you will not follow the scientific method. The scientists you cite made their contributions by following the scientific method.
You are strictly, by your own admission, a religious apologist. You should not even presume to hold scientific opinions because you do not meet the qualifications for doing so.
This appears to be something developed fairly recently. Someone can decide if he has been following the scientific method by whether his paper is published in one of the refereed scientific journals, which is to say, it is a consensus whether he has been doing science or not.
Again I aver that methodological naturalism reduces the scope of inquiry for science and therefore it cannot investigate truth. That is the domain of theology and philosophy.
Mathematics has no such boundaries, nor does it have a problem with the epistemic divide.
Excuse me Coyoteman, but Alamo-Girl did no such thing! All she suggested was that methodological naturalism is a fine tool within its proper scope; i.e., dealing with observables in physical nature. Although clearly there's more to nature than the purely physical, science has no "purchase" on questions relating to things that aren't physical (such things as information, consciousness, etc., even the physical laws themselves). You need philosophy and/or theology to engage such questions, because they are not suitable objects for scientific methodologies, dealing as they do with non-observables, or even what philosophy calls "non-existent reality." [I.e., you have "existent" reality" (the physical) and "non-existent reality" (the non-physical, yet nonetheless real). And they work together.]
The trick is to properly qualify the questions in order to determine which is the appropriate "tool set" to be used; and then to remain aware of "which hat" one is wearing -- that of the scientist or that of the philosopher/theologian. I personally think that few people can handle these distinctions as well and as honestly as Alamo-Girl.
On the other hand, I often get the impression reading you that you believe anything that is not physical or directly observable -- anything, that is, that the scientific method cannot be applied to -- simply doesn't exist. This would make you a philosopher, or even a theologian, in a certain way; but I notice you do not seem to recognize that.
Well, my two cents...FWIW.
Get over yourself ... you’re starting to sound like (not be, but be like) Ichneumon the perfect (or was prefect?).